Scholar

Very well put! I have the feeling that far fewer people are green than one might actually assume. The question is, is it more likely that a blue person has compassion for a certain group (transgenders, animals, women) over an ideal of justice, or is it more likely that a green person lacks compassion for a certain group (oppressors, biggots etc.)? Compassion is not exclusive to stage green, but it is a defining factor. I think in most cases it would be the former that is more likely. We have to keep in mind that Spiral Dynamics is not a model of ideology but of consciousness development. A certain level of consciousness makes it more likely to adopt a certain ideology, not the other way around. Most people are against slavery, but does that mean they are all green? Everyone can have empathy and compassion for some groups. Lot's of people love puppies, and almost everyone loves their own family. Green is not simply that you learn to have compassion for a certain group, the defining consciousness of green is in my opinion more of something like having compassion for all beings, to simply sense that all beings have their own perspective, and maybe even to see how limited they all are in the ways they act. The deep consciousness of someone else's perspective reveals that they are the way they are because of circumstances, be it their personality or their environment. That is not simply an ideology that is being adopted, I think it is actually truth revealed through consciousness. When you become conscious of the nature of your perspective, which I think plays a big role in becoming green, you realize your own limitation, and thus everyone's limitation. I don't think that a person of that level of consciousness would be likely to blame someone on anything. Most people I would call green are very compassionate even towards people that they would think commit evil acts.

As I said in my post, the reason why that is most likely not the case is because she could simply eat mussels, a non-sentience meat source that wouldn't cause direct harm. The fact that she either didn't research it or is not willing to make the pleasure sacrifice is already enough to tell me about her character, but I did actually listen to a debate with her once and I disagree that she is green, I would say she is mostly yellow and partly green. Though I don't think it is necessary to be vegan for someone to be green, I do think that she is not genuine. And I'm not sure if that is correct, but it seems like she went vegan for personal health, which is not necessarily green thinking at all. And I also disagree that being a feminist makes you green, I would consider it more of a yellow movement (individual freedoms for your own ingroup), if you are a male and you are a feminist, you are more likely to be green.

I don't know if being vegan necessarily equates to being stage green. I would say the root of vegan philosophy is probably a stage green personality product but the adoption of it can easily be done by stage blue or orange. Though I don't know, it's strange that there are people who simply do not understand the vegan argument and that there are others who easily do. I guess a stage green personality would more easily adopt it? There are a lot of vegans who lose motivation and then stop being vegans, but I think they are usually mostly orange people. The argument is usually health, though you can mostly tell that it is an excuse due to the fact that they do not consume non-sentient meat sources instead, like mussels. That's when you know they don't even really want to try, though it's probably a simplification of what really is happening in their minds. I can only say how it is for me personally, but I don't struggle whatsoever while being a vegan. For me it's common sense, at this point I even get confused by people having the capacity to choose pleasure over the absence of suffering and death of other almost same level-sentience beings. To me it's on the common-sense level of not raping someone. It's simply not a struggle, and I don't even identify as vegan at all. Though I am a little confused about one thing. There are many stage green people who seem to have never been stage orange, like for example SJW-types or as you'd call "militant"-vegans. I feel like a lot of these people are the exact opposite of stage orange, like people who have been bullied in school and didn't take care of themselves, and put their frustration into group identity thinking. Though I don't know if these people would be stage blue or green? They clearly haven't gone through stage orange, unless I misunderstand something about that process, though they do try to protect minority groups. Is it possible that this could be a part of stage blue thinking as well? They are usually very angry about injustice, and I would say that is more of a blue quality, so maybe militant vegans are also stage blue as they are motivated by injustice primarily? In fact, I just checked out a chart about spiral dynamics, stage has these as negative traits: "Shy, lonely, isolated, lack of empathy, bitter, critical.", which is a perfect description of SJWs and probably of most militant vegans, too. So I think it comes down to stage blue and stage green both adoption the same philosophy and acting differently, because they both are group oriented thinkers. Of course stage blue are probably not as empathetic so they will not as often encompass other species into their empathetic spectrum as stage green do, so that is why militant vegans are the small minority among vegans in general. Ex-vegans are explained due to stage orange personalities being motivated to be vegan to "be a better version of themselves" and to "not harm the environment because it's irrational and will in the end harm the human species". These are actually two arguments that you hear very often from people, that eating meat is so destructive for the environment, when you then ask them why that is a bad thing, they will argue that it will have negative consequences for the entire human species, including themselves and their own agenda. So they are becoming vegan out of a selfish argumentation over an empathetic one. The destruction itself is not the problem, but the consequences it will have for them, or how it will make them look if they support such destruction. That is why once the veganism becomes an annoyance, or they lose motivation, they go back to being non-vegan. I remember I once suspected Leo to be motivated in the same way when he posted a video on his blog about the ecology. He argued that you would need to be ecological to be a developed human, which to me sounds very much like stage orange reasoning. It's still self-centered, but maybe I am actually confusing it with stage yellow. Either way, from a stage green perspective, if I am correct about my analysis that I actually am partly stage green, it does not really require reason to be ecological. You simply look at the destruction and you make the decision not to be part of it, to the extend that you can, the same way you would not rape someone. It's not something that you need to rationalize at all. You see the suffering you are causing and you don't do it anymore. I think this is actually a good pointer to a stage green person, you simply have to show them a video of what is happening and they will themselves change their actions. With lower stages you will need to use philosophy to explain to them why it's "bad", unhealthy, not good for the environment and thus not good for humans etc.

If you step forward you cannot step backward. If you both step forward and backward you stand still. If there is no duality, there is nothing at all. It is obvious. For god to exist you must cease to exist, and for you to exist god must cease to exist. Only when god and you both cease to exist there will be true nothingness. With limit the limitlessness has to cease, with limitlessness there has to cease limit. With absolute infinite there has to cease the self, and with the self there has to cease absolute infinity. To take a step backwards you must not take a step forward. Absolute infinity and finitude are two sides of the same coin. You can get lost in either of them. There is to be found boundless illusion in limit and limitlessness. Leo Gura will never cease to seek, because you cannot fully realize something that is endless. No amount of seeking will give you the truth, it will only give you more illusion, it will give you more of the other side of the coin. Enlightenment is to not be enlightened. The duality between nothing and everything. The duality between illusion and reality. There is nothing to realize, there is simply a coin to flip. One must find the middle way, the way to step forward and backwards at the same time, to stand still. There is no depth in stillness, the depth Leo is seeking comes from a step backward, when all he was used to was taking step forwards. Leo confuses enlightenment with a pathway, when in truth it is a balancing act. A perfect balance between dualities. Depth can only be found when you lose balance and fall. To fall from one side to the other, you must as some point be in perfect balance, it is from self to god when you reach stillness, though god is not the balance, god is merely the other side that leads to the same pit.

We should all say farewell to Leo because he might never come back.

Can music, like Buddhist Chanting or anything similar help with self-inquiry? I am not sure if music while meditating is just bloating my ego or whether it is actually helpful. To this date, I had almost all my insights as I was listening to music, but I am not sure if these insights can be trusted, maybe my mind is deluding itself and the ego is growing even bigger than it previously was. The reason why I think that is because the music makes me feel good and gives me a sense of meaning, which must be related to my ego, right? My ego likes the music, it is attached to it, so all insights might be delusions rather than actual disillusionment. Though when listening to music I can focus better, possibly because of the dopamine, and thus usually be in a far more observant state than when I am simply meditating in silence. It is like I have better control over my mind, though I am also filled with feelings, which I assume is counterproductive for attaining a meditative state. Is listening to music while self-inquiring or meditating recommended or not?

I think I have broken a mind-blockage that I had. I had this strange idea of reality, and I see now that the idea itself is reality. It's not that the idea is correct, but that the idea IS part of the fabric of reality. Just like color, sounds and everything else. It also makes sense to me, because all of these things are an expression of infinite possibilities. The question of how can anything exist is like asking how can ideas exist. And it's just as valid to ask how color can exist. They are just there, it's so ridiculous. It's like the properties of reality, or the mind, are actually what reality is. It's like inside the properties is nothing at all, the properties are just what they are. I don't know how to describe it but it's like there is nothing "behind" the properties. It's like the sense of where they are coming from is much less present than it was before. It's not about where the cup is coming from, but where is the experience of the cup coming from. It's like reality is literally made out of sound and color. It literally is it. It's like hearing is not really hearing, instead the sound is the direct expression of reality. I'm not losing my sense of self though. Should I try to find my sense of self and realize the same thing for it, that it is an expression of reality? That there is nothing behind my self? But I don't know where to find it. I sense a subtle shift to connectedness. It seems like I am close to something than before, hard to describe. If I was a screen, I feel like I'm connected to what is behind the screen, and I my sense of being alone is shifting too.

It is quite interesting, I think most opinions on this matter are formed by culture. For me it is obvious that a more sophisticated civilization, with a people that are more compassionate and reasonable, will deem the act of animal exploitation as an unnecessary act of violence, quite similar to that of the killing of jews by the Nazis. I think Leonardo Da Vinci was absolutely right with his estimation: "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.” The fact that this is not yet the case is very telling of the condition of our civilization. To me it does not really feel like veganism is a personal choice, for me it is like not raping another human being, or not chopping babies into pieces. I find it funny that there is a word that describes beings that do not inflict excruciating suffering onto others unnecessarily. Usually we stigmatize the other way around. What is someone called who does not murder people for pleasure and self interest? I only know of sadists, psychopaths, murderers. Are we walking around and pointing fingers at people who are "empaths", who are not willing to fall into one of the first traps of the egoic mind? What is most important to me is not the benefits of veganism, or whether or not it is right or wrong. What is important to me is what I see when I picture myself going back to consuming meat, dairy or eggs. When I picture it, I see someone who is weak. I see someone who is too selfish to take the difficult path. I see a being that is so egoic it is willing to cause unimaginable suffering to others just for it's own benefit. I see a being that was seduced by the devil within, by the sad creature that is afraid of death and suffering, so much so that it is willing to cause it in thousand-fold to other versions of itself. I see the pathetic excuse of a human being, one that exploits for no other reason but comfort. I see in that being everything that I deem undesirable, for me, the the ones I love, and the rest of the world. I see a being that is hindering the progression of mankind and nature. I see an evolutionary mistake that without question will be eradicated, whether in this generation, in the next, or in the late future. I cannot imagine that such a being could ever attain the truths that I am set out to attain. I cannot imagine such a being to be truly joyous. I cannot imagine it on the path of true self-actualization. I cannot imagine it free of suffering. I cannot play the game of life that way, I guess it is the will of the absolute, or my free choice, if there is any difference. The benefits of "veganism"? It is not murdering, torturing and enslaving other beings. It is reduction of suffering by the greatest degree that a human being is probably capable of in this day and age. It is contributing to the future of earth, to elevate us to a new level, to be one of the pioneers of compassion and reason. It is in my humble opinion an integral part of becoming self-actualized, whether some of our mentors can recognize that or not. This decision should not be difficult whatsoever for a even remotely developed human being, and if we look back at history, it truly never was.

There are a few things that confuse me, and I do not know how Leo got around them: How do we know that the map is not the territory? How do we know that an idea cannot reflect reality? If it cannot reflect reality, then how can the idea "An idea cannot reflect reality!" reflect reality? If all ideas are illusory then the idea of illusion is an illusion too and thus it is actually not correct. Concerning post modernism and the subjectivity of reality, how do we actually know that validity is non-existent? If validity is non-existent, then the claim that validity is non-existent is simply invalid. It seems to me like this very assumption is what spawns all of spiritual beliefs. And the most fundamental belief is that experience can reveal absolute truth. So, when Leo does have the experience of God, he actually forms the belief that this experience confirms his prior beliefs, which were all attained not from direct experience, but from books. Not everyone who has spiritual experiences actually forms spiritual beliefs. Leo claims that it is the absolute truth though, and yet he claims you need to understand it before you have the experience so you can actually understand absolute truth? How the hell does that work? Isn't all of what Leo is telling us nothing but information he himself has either read, heard or seen somewhere else? He claims that he has direct experience of the truth, but the truth he has attained was already formed before he was even close. He began self-inquiry because he was convinced that it would lead him to the truth, that through direct experience he could attain a notion of the true nature of reality. But before self-inquiry, and he cannot deny that, he already had formed all the notions he is now claiming that were revealed to him. The notion that enlightenment is beyond ideas, that it is nothingness, that reality is non-dual, and that ultimately everything is one. Every single of these notions was attained long before the experience followed. Here is a claim that I cannot wrap my head around: "Reality is beyond ideas, enlightenment is beyond ideas, beyond mind." Now, that claim is made, and that claim is a claim about reality, it is an idea about reality. And from that idea then spawns the notion that direct experience can reveal ultimate truth. Why is Leo so absolutely convinced that the map is not the territory? What if the map actually is the territory? What if outside reality actually does exist, and what if ideas are truthful? How can he ever form an idea that informs him of ideas not being truthful, when that very idea MUST be truthful if he wants to belief it. I don't see a way around this, and I see this very problem in post-modernism. It seems almost like we are using rationality to deconstruct rationality, without actually noticing that the deconstruction is happening with rationality. We use logic to deconstruct logic, and then we claim logic is not truthful, because that's the logical conclusion. But what if reality is partly logical? What if the idea of the brain is actually pointing towards truthfulness? And what if the notion of truthfulness is doing the same? What if the notion of pointing is actually reality? Why wouldn't it be? Because you can attain states in which that notion makes no sense? Because you can attain states that create an absolute notion of oneness? Because there is a state in which reality ceases to exist? Yes, the logical conclusion from these states would be that they are reality, but notice that we need to use logic to even make that claim. It seems to me that the Buddha is actually pointing towards this, the no mind, the not knowing, actually being NOT KNOWING anything at all. And this is not what Leo has attained, or what I would claim most spiritual people have attained. They walk around and make bold claims about reality like anyone else. And even if they don't the notions still exist within them, even if not formed as actual ideas. The experience of oneness creates the notion of oneness, otherwise the subject would not even notice, or there would be no experience of the oneness. The very fact that the "non-experience" of non-duality can be noticed by the mind is pointing towards the creation of notion from logic. The logic is "Experience is reality" and "truth is truth". And we know that Leo does have notions because he can dismiss notions. I think not knowing would actually not change anything at all. If you make the claim that the brain does not exist, and I am not saying that it does, but if you make that claim, you clearly know something. Does anyone understand my problem? I know I should sit and meditate and not think about this, because that's what Leo says, but if I buy into that very notion, which is an idea like any other, I might end up just as deluded as Leo might be. I am not saying he is, but I cannot just assume that he isn't.

But everything you just said is logical. It is maya. Everything you just said is illusion, it is duality. Ever single concept you can have is illusory, isn't it? And also, saying "The absolute is not relative, the logic is relative" is a logical claim, so if logic is relative, that claim is not necessarily true at all. I have the feeling that people do have a great misconception about logic in here. It is not just some metaphysical principles that you can throuw out of the window if you feel like it, it is the essence of ANY statement you make about anything whatsoever. Anything you say about logic is using logic, and anything you say about the absolute is using logic.

Then we indeed have a different understanding of logic. For me, all thoughts, all notions, contain inherently logic. Thus our discussion is pointless because we are talking about two different things. Or rather, you can be without logic, but you cannot think without it. Logic is like the ground of language and thought, it is what makes it emerge.

Yes, maybe the greeks were right about the divinity of Logos? But you didn't ever abandon logic, you can't really, because you use it to create notions. I think we might have different understandings of logic. Non of your logic was proven wrong, what was proven wrong was claims about reality your previously made. You then used the newly attained information, and with logic, you constructed a new notion of reality. You still have a notion of reality, even if it is just that direct experience is reality. It is still a notion, and thus it is still Maya, isn't it? All ideas are maya, even the ones that you find logical after having experience enlightenment.

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. But I can say that any statement I will make will be derived from logic, no matter what I will conclude. But how can I trust logic?

Who says that it is logical that 1 ->2? That's not logical, obviously, but how does that proof that logical processes are illogical? And if you proved that, you proved it with logic either way. And if logic was invalid, the statement that logic is invalid is invalid, at least if we apply logic. If we don't, anything goes.

I'm just more confused, because all of what you are saying is logical, even the entire "loop/circular reasoning"-notion is logical! You derived to that "truth" by just another circular reason, so it is just as invalid/valid as the everything else.

From what I can tell, I am producing both the someone who is saying and the meaning, but ONLY if I accept logic as absolute truth. If I do not accept logic, then I can't make sense out of anything whatsoever, reality wouldn't even exist, because it's a notion...

That's another logical claim! You are saying it cannot be absolutely true, but that's a logical claim, and if that logical claim is not absolutely true you just cancelled your own statement. Can you not see how these kind of "truths" actually dissolve? They are destroying themselves, and maybe that is why they are actually not true? But then again, that would be logical... How can you just accept these claims and accuse me of mental masturbation? Why do you simply trust Leo that mental masturbation actually exists? Because it was LOGICAL to you? "Oh this whole mental masturbating thing makes complete sense... wait, did I just mentally masturbate??"

You do not understand my point. His claim that he even was on the moon is a logical claim. Once he is back on the planet, he only has a memory of having been on the moon. The memory exists, and from that memory he makes a claim. That requires logic. And it also requires logic to make the claim that experience equals reality. That notion itself is logical. What I am saying is, aren't ALL notions, including ALL spiritual notions, maya? Aren't THEY ALL delusion? Thus no claim whatsoover can be trusted, no matter how much you spin this around. ANY claim about ANYTHING is still a claim, isn't it? I'm not new to spirituality and non-duality. I know everything you are talking about, but all of it is still derived from logic. "Absolute can only be experienced" is a logical claim, and you accept multiple delusions just so you can even make that claim.

But this is the very point I was trying to make. You are creating logical claims, and these logical claims produce the claim that logic is illusory. I know very well that "The map is not the territory" is a completely logical claim, but that claim IS a map, so by definition the statement itself cannot be true whatsoever, because the map is not truth, it is just a map. It cancels itself out, doesn't it? And I do not think that the absolute is an idea, I think it is an experience, or whatever the idea of experience is pointing to. I know you will say it is beyond experience and it is nothingness, but by my definition of experience, anything you are aware of and can make claims about is an experience. You are making claims about the absolute, and you are aware of it, or you claim to have been aware of it, thus it was an experience. The problem I cannot wrap my head around is the claims that follow that experience. The saying "I am the absolute" or "Everything is me". To even have a notion like that requires logic and ideas, but aren't they illusory and ultimately false? Fundamentally, even non-spiritually, I know my entire reality is my mind, there is nothing beyond it from my perspective, and all notions of other perspectives is happening within my perspective. My reality is generated by myself, and all notions of other realities is generated by myself as well. Even the notion of "Me" is generated by "myself", or whatever is creating me. Is it though? It only is if I subscribe to logic, because without logic none of that would be even remotely true. I can only make these claims because I have a notion of casuality. To even have a notion about any of this I need to accept logic, because without logic no claims whatsoever can be made. And the strange thing is that that is a logical claim too! So maybe claims can be make without logic, I mean, only logic is telling me that it is impossible. And who the hell says that logic is absolutely truthful? If it isn't, then dualism and non-dualism can exist both together. I could be generating reality and reality could be generating me. An apple could be a road and a road could be nothingness. So is logic true or is it not? Any statement you will give me will probablybe logical, and that's the paradox. You cannot say anything without using language, so any statement about language is already using language. Thus, language itself is beyond the subject that is using language, and maybe that is something that we just don't consider? Maybe truth cannot be attained, and all is simply delusion? But then, even that statement is delusion and cancels itself again. But only if we subscribe to logic, because without it we can just go ahead and claim anything. And then we claim that there are things beyond logic, beyond mind. Which is another logical claim! How is that not delusional? I do not believe that the experience of the absolute does not exist, I am saying that any claims and notions resulting from that experience are just as invalid as any other claim about reality. Maybe they are more valid, but how could we possibly derive that? With logic? The acceptance of direct experience as truth is logical! To even call the experience anything seems silly to me because it is not an idea, as you would say yourself. But the irony is that you just created an IDEA about the absolute, and that idea is "The absolute is not an idea!". That by itself is an idea, a logical claim only made because you subscribe to logic, either consciously or not. I don't know, I am just utterly confused about this. My line of reasoning is that reason and logic cannot be trusted at all. And if they can be trusted, what the hell does that mean? Even the notion of trust comes from logic! Exactly! So isn't Leo falling into this trap as well? Aren't we all falling into that trap? And isn't the only way to avoid it "not knowing" anything? But then again, all of this is just another logical claim! Reason has its limits is a logical, reasonable claim too. If it is limited then how do we know whether it is actually limited? Limit is a notion itself. Yes, it does seem like Leo is creating a hierarchy of truths. He is saying that there is an absolute truth, and he derives that statement from internal logic. But what if there just are multiple truths? If we consider that, then it would mean that truth could just change. "The absolute" would be nothing but a different truth, one that was changed. What if the present moment is simply truthful? What if right now "I" do actually exist? I can call it an illusion, but it still exists! And then, once I make it disappear, and once the truth has changed, I now claim the new experience as truth? Why is there the assumption that there is depth to truth? That there are deeper truths? What if they are just different truths, and one is attained taking a certain path and another is not? Why is there a truth beyond all truths?

I have this question that keeps boggling my mind. It seems like with the model of the brain and subjective reality you can explain all of the enlightenment experiences that people have. The fact that losing the ego leads to the mind identifying with all the content it is producing is quite obvious from a "simulation" point of view. And of course it would be the most joyful experience the mind could possibly produce, because it is a limitless expansion, which is all that the human mind is striving for. I don't understand though how one can trust the mind with the judgement that the truth is that "I am god, god is all there is", because this is clearly the judgement it makes. It immediately takes the new experience, or the newly generated subjective reality, and claims that NOW it knows the truth. Now it knows that ego was illusion, that all form is illusion. Though, it still claims that it is nothingness, it still creates a concept, a map. Without the map in fact it wouldn't even have a reason to be joyful, because it didn't realize anything, all that changes is the experience. As enlightened people claim themselves, they have always been nothingness, but yet they enjoy "knowing" it. And I have this feeling that the knowing is actually another delusion, because it is just more identification. Shouldn't the true realization just be not knowing, to such a degree that one would actually cease to exist completely? So much so that no concepts will follow? Or is Leo actually dead inside right now, and all the words he is speaking are delusional anyways? Because all concepts must be. I don't know, but it seems like Leo even though he pretends to be skeptical, he actually just believes it. "Direct experience = reality", but that's just another concept, how does he know that it's true? I don't know if I'm commiting Zen-devilry, but it just makes me more skeptical of Leo's judgement. It's even worse because what I say has to be illusion too, so it cannot be true, that would mean that nothing can be true is actually not true, and that would be paradoxical. I guess what I am saying is that what if the ego gets attached to the experience of "god"? From having had boundaries it just extends itself throughout the entirety of consciousness, so that all experiences are identified as "me". "Oh I'm infinity, I am god! I am all enlightened people!", why is Leo so certain that this conceptual claim is true instead of "Oh, I am my mind, and my mind is all of my reality, all experience is me". It's so weird because from Leo's perspective his claim is actually absolutely true, like from my perspective all of my reality is a product of my mind, so of course it is all me. The delusion comes in the assumption that the mind is reality, and not just illusion. So the "Oh my GOD, I AM INFINITY" is actually the delusional ego claiming it's own illusion as itself. Sure, you are "infinity", but infinity is just another illusion. So you are not actually infinity, you are nothing at all, and to actually realize that would be to have no experience at all, meaning true death, no joy, no nothing. But then again non-dual teaching does say that there is no difference between nothing and illusion. I'm so confused, and I do not want to be deluded with fairy tales, even if it is direct experience for me. Right now it is direct experience to me that I exist, so why wouldn't my mind be capable of creating the delusion that I am the absolute, as an actual reality?

Yeah I watched it too now, it definitely put my mind to rest about the objections and questions I had!

Hm, maybe Leo is just not yet at the "final stages" of enlightenment? Isn't it supposed to go somewhat like that: I am person I am I Nothingness So maybe he is at the I stage where he percieves everything as him, so the divinity/god stage of "I"? The next step would then be to truly get rid of the I all together until no actions are taken like some buddhist monks and yogis? I don't know, but I remember someone having said something of that sort. And Leo would probably know about this so... what am I thinking.

I keep asking myself why I am doing anything at all, and it always seems to come down to trying to avoid or fill the emptiness within myself. I also asked myself what that emptiness really is and why nothing can actually fill it. I had the thought that the emptiness is always there because it is showing me my ultimate destiny, which is death. No matter what is achieved in life, it will always ultimately end in the same way. There is no avoiding it, and maybe the mind somehow knows it. But yet, the emptiness is precisely what is fueling all of my actions. The emptiness is literally the reason why I do anything at all. The trying to fill the existential dread of eventual non-existence is what motivates everything, even though everything is completely pointless. From what I have read and heard, everything really is nothingness, and reality an expression of nothingness. Enlightenment happens on death of me, the realization of the absolute is the realization of nothingness. Is it a coincidence that the expression of reality is fueled by the seemingly same thing as the expression of my actions? I do everything to avoid nothingness, and reality really exists precisely because of nothingness, because of the ultimate limitlessness of itself. So reality, by coming into existence, must fracture itself into expressions or consciousness, it is in some way avoiding nothingness, or trying to fill it with absolutely everything. I also remember that the ultimate goal of buddhism is nirvana, the absence of everything, meaning nothingness itself. The absence of everything means the ultimate absence of suffering. Does that mean that the expression of nothingness, which is everything, is in itself suffering? The avoiding of nothingness seems to be suffering, so doing anything at all is ultimately always suffering. Is that why nirvana is desirable, or not necessarily desirably, but naturally the end product of reality? It's like nothingness is expressing itself and pulling the expression back into itself. All expression eventually dissolves, but the expression exists precisely because it is nothingness expressing itself, so meaning nothingness running way from itself. Because of that it seems to me like existence itself is necessarily suffering, it is almost as if that's the very "point" of existence. Might that also be why evolution is leading us directly to the acceptance of nothingness? To realizing nothingness into all of existence and see no difference in life and death, in expression and nothingness. If the expression of anything is suffering, the point of expression is to eventually become nothingness. I know from a non-dual perspective the expression and nothingness are the same thing, but it still seems like a fundamental force from the perspective of the human mind. Suffering is like nothingness pulling something back into itself, and something clinging to itself. In other words, suffering is not just the inability to let go, it is metaphysically the object or expression resisting the dissolving into non-existence. That is what suffering is, it is not painful, it isn't bad, it just is what it is, and it is expressed within consciousness. This would be so interesting, because letting go of ego would not just be something happening in the mind, it would be something happening in reality itself. Then again, there is really seems to be no difference, because they both are the same thing. Most importantly, this would mean that creativity is a product of nothingness, and literally equal to suffering itself. The act of creation, or the act of nothingness expressing itself, is equal to suffering, because creation is fundamentally running away from nothingness. The fuel for human desire, for human intelligence, and basically for all of reality would then be nothingness. Suffering is not at all bad, it is just what happens. I think I'm not even using the conventional word of suffering anymore, because it is not just resistance, it is the fragmentation, the discrimination itself. That is why nirvana is the ultimate goal, it is not just the cessation of resistance, but the cessation of expression itself. The cessation of absolutely everything. It is not even really a goal, it is just what is happening. Everything is pointing towards nothingness because everything is nothingness and eventually folds back into itself. It's like god exploding while it is absorbing itself. Does any of this make any sense?

So as it seems as though there are photoreceptive cells in the pineal gland, which in a more primitive form is found as an actual third eye on lizards. Does the term enlightenment come from the experience of the "third eye" actually being stimulated and "hallucinating" light? And if so, how do people describe the expirience? Obviously I can't imagine having a third eye, so is there actually an experience of a third (or rather a second) visual field added to consciousness? With how visual interpretation works I would assume that the visual information would probably more likely be "overlaid" onto the already existing visual field, like how our brain merges the information of both our eyes together. So that would probably mean that the experience would seem like everything just gets lighter, with a broadening of the visual field. Is this how it is described? And if the Pineal Gland is responsible for the illusion of self, it would make perfect sense that if stimulated an experience of a light would occur, which would describe the experience of birth (which obviously we cannot recall) and the experience of the brain shutting down (seeing the light). An additional question would be why the brain actually stimulates the Pineal Gland on death and what evolutionary purpose that would have. And also what happens if when a more sudden death occurs, where the brain is damaged and does not run the protocol of shutting down? What would even be the difference, both end in the cessation of the self. Maybe the shutting down of certain mind-systems simply leads to the illusion of self disappearing, but I read that the brain specifically produces DMT on death.

I would say the greatest requirement for becoming an "artist" is to simply love making art, in whatever form it is. If you like to draw, you simply draw. If you like to make music, you simply make music. The goal is secondary, even if it can be a primary motivator. If you won't enjoy creating music, or drawing, or writing books, then you will have a very hard time doing so. And on the other hand, if you enjoy creating music, or drawing or writing books, you will do it anyways, no matter if you achieve a goal or not. Maybe you are looking for an identity, which if you follow the path Leo has laid out for us, you will some day come to realize that it is a rather less desirable thing to strife for. But you have to know that most artists didn't become great because they wanted to become "artists", they became great because they loved what they did, because they were talented and/or because they were at the right place at the right time. Many of them, sadly, turn their art into an identity once they become successful, and as we know, that road is filled with unnecessary suffering.